Creationist bloggers can be infuriating. If one has infuriated you by persisting in nonsense even when corrected, or refusing to reply to your criiticsm, you may feel driven to recording the fact. If so, you may register your disapproval here and hope a response is forthcoming.

https://answersingenesis.org/human-evol ... echniques/Neanderthals were a separate group to our species, with some interbreeding taking place, and they never survived any worldwide flood because they were already extinct 4,500 years ago. You are spreading false histories. As usual. Your ice age also CONTRADICTS God's word at Genesis 8:22. More (unbiblical) lies. No answers there - just propaganda about the 'historical' science you normally deplore.

viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3153&p=52203#p52203No, Mr Ham the Bible accounts for life in general (in a historical but non-scientific manner). To 'explain' long extinct dinosaurs you need a science reference book not Genesis (nor one of AiG's publications full of fake facts about dinosaurs allegedly being alive alongside humans at the time the Old Testament was written).

Scientists can explain dinosaur extinction. Young earth creationists are puzzled. No wonder - their extinction (whenever it happened) cannot be described as 'biblical'.

https://answersingenesis.org/worldview/only-two/ Only two ('worldviews')"These teachings reflect the fact that, in an ultimate sense, there are only two religious views in the world—beliefs built on man’s fallible word (darkness/sand) and the one that’s built on the infallible Word of God beginning in Genesis (light/rock)."

Which presumably explains why the bigot denies man-made climate change - the concept did not come from the Bible, so it's 'man's fallible word'. But a lot of real things today did not come from the Bible - you can probably think of some.

According to the 1 August article: "Once you cease building your thinking on the absolute authority of God’s Word, then ultimately anything goes, if you can get away with it." Says a man who says all sorts of things about topics like dinosaurs, fossils, an ice age, recent climate change, events allegedly accompanying the flood in Genesis and 'non-existent aliens' that are NOT based upon any clear Bible teachings.

Ham knows all about getting away with it.

"It’s so important for believers to know how to engage people who hold to a false, man-based religion. To assist you in becoming equipped, AiG is now making our entire world religions conference available as a DVD set titled World Religions Conference: Biblical Foundations and Modern Religions."Cost? Just 79 dollars:https://answersingenesis.org/store/prod ... =90-7-911&

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL-EeTVcAnk Talk on 3 August 2018 - 'Science confirms the Bible'."Learn about DNA as evidence for the infinite God, the basics of genetics and natural selection as they relate to biblical “kinds,” the origin of so-called races, the truth about Cain's wife, evidence for the worldwide Flood, the actual time of the Ice Age, literal vs. figurative creation days, the origin of death, dating methods, and more. The Bible is true. Science confirms it, and with the help of this video, you and your teens will be better equipped to defend it!"

He only really stops warming up the audience (or waffling) after ten minutes. There's little that's new here. Same old same old. He only really touches on his precise topic after 30 minutes - when he misreads Genesis 6:19-20 in order to claim Noah saved male and female pairs of so-called 'kinds' and not of every (land-based) species. How could ALL the saved animals have the ability to breed offspring - as God implied that they should after the flood (Genesis 8:17) - if they weren't of the same SPECIES? It's just that the word, and concept, of species had not been coined when Genesis was written.

He falsely claims that genetics 'confirms' the young earth creationist 'orchard' and not a single 'tree' of life (lots of Christians accept the latter).

Short propaganda video pushed at 37 minutes. Someone talking at breakneck speed in a way that audience cannot fact-check. It claims that evolution does not make sense of what is observed.

And those so-called 'biblical glasses' to make sense of the world (or make the Bible make sense of the world eg make it say that most of the fossil record dates from the Genesis flood).

He also makes a claim at 54 minutes about the Hermit-Coconino boundary at the Grand Canyon. And spurious comparisons of the Mt St Helens 1980 eruption with 'Noah's flood'.

He also lies to his audience that only around 10 per cent or so of dating methods confirm millions of years.

Ham has basically stolen the word 'science', replaced real consensus science with his fantasies without disproving the former (which he normally labels either 'naturalism' or 'a lie'), and then claims to 'love' 'science'.

Incidentally the video is open to comments underneath. At the time of writing precisely NOBODY had commented.

"They showed it doesn’t take millions of years to form fossils!"Liar. And a good example of how Ken Ham indoctrinates people using bad logic, half-truths and deliberate exaggeration ie 'making up facts'.

This was not 'real life'. It was a carefully designed laboratory experiment.

"This research is fascinating and points toward something creationists have been saying for decades—it doesn’t take long ages to form fossils! Under the right conditions—which the flood of Noah’s time would have created—fossils can form quickly."So presumably AiG will now start claiming that Noah's flood (burying creatures rapidly in water) led to them being fossilised in days/weeks as a result of incredibly intense heat and pressure. As described in the report that Ham links to (but cherry picks):"Using a hydraulic press, the items are first packed into clay tablets about the diameter of a dime. Each tablet is then placed in a sealed metal tube, which gets heated to over 410 ºF (210 ºC) while also being subjected to 3,500 psi (241 bar) of pressure."

This is not science by AiG.

It is a con.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trTfYwt78Ls&t=4sDiscussed again after 8 minutes. Ham repeats the SAME lie (which he likes) and has the gall to call his conclusion 'logic'. And not all fossils buried during the Genesis flood would have been at the 'ocean bottom', where there is intense pressure, as the 'clever dick' Hodge implies. (Comments are now banned under these videos again.)

Look at all the nonsense from these unbiblical creationists - when put on the spot and obliged to reveal to the world all their totally made-up claims:"The flood of Noah’s day was much more destructive than any 40-day rainstorm ever could be. Scripture says that the “fountains of the great deep” broke open (Genesis 7:11). In other words, earthquakes, volcanoes, and geysers of molten lava and scalding water were squeezed out of the earth’s crust in a violent, explosive upheaval. These fountains were not stopped until 150 days into the flood—so the earth’s surface was literally churning underneath the waters for about five months!"Most of that is not in Genesis 7:11 nor any other Bible verse. "It was God’s purpose and desire not only to destroy man and all air-breathing land animals, but also to reshape and purge the earth itself." Except that the account in Genesis 6 (whilst being totally silent on the topic of fossilisation) states God's words at verse 7 - "I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them" ie there's the suggestion that the flood would primarily kill vast numbers of humans and of land-based species (but as the article admits the vast majority of known fossils are marine fossils which suggests they did NOT die in a 'worldwide' flood)."Due to the marine nature of the judgment ...". The Bible says NO such thing and this is another made-up fact from these liars - employed solely to try and give a convincing answer to the enquirer ie that as young earth creationist apologists "we would expect marine fossils to dominate most of the fossil record". If you read the flood account and assumed the event left behind many fossils, you simply would NOT expect marine fossils to 'dominate'. "As mentioned earlier, since the flood was a marine catastrophe, we would expect marine fossils to be dominant in the fossil record, and that is the case".Tell the lie twice, and maybe AiG supporters will buy into it (and forget what the flood account actually records, including that no marine species were reported to have boarded the ark because rising and expanding seas and lakes would not necessarily have killed them). "A walk up through the walls of Grand Canyon and northward across the Colorado Plateau, for example, is not a walk through evolutionary time."It's a walk through DEEP time - and a period before even most dinosaurs first existed."With all of these factors, it is much less likely for there to be pre-flood human, mammal, and bird fossils". Not according to Genesis 6:7 (if you assume the flood would leave behind most of the fossil record). But since it is TRUE that human, land animal and bird fossils form only a small proportion of the (DEEP time) fossil record, Ken Ham should STOP misleadingly indoctrinating kids that "If there really were a global flood as described in Genesis, what would we expect to see today? Billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth". No - we see mostly millions of marine fossils such as corals and shellfish - which the Bible does NOT say were killed in that global flood. The fossils in question are mostly much too old anyway."... creationists believe the order in the fossil record exists due to the flood...". They are believing in a scientific impossibility ie 'magic'.

I was expecting a rational sounding response by Ham and co to the effect that evolutionists don't really know what happened in the (distant) past and have to keep changing their stories (whereas the Bible never changes). And that finding a dinosaur in the 'wrong' place and at the 'wrong' time shows that mainstream 'historical' science is riddled with problems and should not be trusted by Christians or anyone else.

However this is what we got:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRiNYg9YBRA (comments are disabled for this video)This video asks in its title 'was a new dinosaur found'. Yes - a new dinosaur species was discovered. Is that some kind of problem for someone? Ham asks a question do we know that this organism actually lived and died in (what is now) China? Yes - he really did. He suggests that from the perspective of the 'global flood' it could have lived 'somewhere else' and been 'washed into that area' and simply been buried there after living 'somewhere else'. Yes - he really did. He also insists that the scientists merely found the remains in sediment 'washed in by water'. Yes - he really did. And he also claims that scientists will be surprised to discover that 'there are no transitional forms', 'evolution never happened', ''God created kinds of animals after their kind' and 'there was a global flood and that's why we find fossils all over the world''. Yes - really. And Ham's colleagues untruthfully, and hypocritically, accuse the actual scientists involved of being 'not willing' to change what they think. The last minute or so of the video after this point is stuffed with further lies - you might care to count how many (I counted five). As well as anti-science bigots, Ham, Purdom and Hodge are OTT imho.

And we also got this on Monday:https://answersingenesis.org/dinosaurs/ ... rong-time/This article contains a different set of lies from Mr Ham. That there is something 'wrong' with the idea (as it is applied to this discovery) that 'the process of science changes our knowledge as we discover more evidence and data'. That it is because they 'impose interpretations' upon material evidence (that dinosaurs lived millions of years ago and evolved from another kind) that scientists are 'consistently getting the story wrong'. No - if this happens (and often it doesn't) it's merely because scientists are investigating the distant past and on occasions more evidence and more data are uncovered. Ham's rhetoric is totally misleading. He would have a case if a rabbit fossil was found in pre-Cambrian sedimentary rocks. But he doesn't. So all he can do is complain that the evolutionary model is 'plastic' and then falsely charge that the model must therefore be simply a 'worldview' and not science. Guess what he thinks science 'is'! Ham also moans a lot about the media - but when Science Daily comes up with a somewhat sensationalist headline which twice uses the word 'wrong' Ham milks it. And here is his punchline: "Many more surprises are still to come for evolutionists because they have the wrong starting point - man's fallible opinions rather than God's infallible Word". But that is not the Bible (which never mentions fossils or biogeography or speciation or extinction) - it's KEN HAM's fallible word (and this is my fallible word too ).

When that dinosaur article was flagged here one or two people responded with (supportive) hatred:https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham/"They never apologise for lying to us over all these years.""Just keep ignoring the facts...."

Young earth creationists are so committed to turning Christianity into hate.

If there's a hell some people will be there because of bigots like these and their lies about and hatred towards scientists and non-creationists.

But he's still going to indoctrinate kids about them (and call people he disagrees with 'stupid') - as well as pretending that Job 40 says 'Behemoth' had a 'massive' tail (it actually says the tail 'sways like a cedar').

Thomas in fact suggests that it's a poor question to have asked, and effectively dodges it.

Apart from that, what noteworthy ideas do we glean from the Thomas effort (which is also discussed here: https://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.co ... dinosaurs/)?- the totally unsupported inference that dinosaurs lived in swamps and in water and not on dry land like us humans (the article's footnote 1 refers to some book by one of Thomas' colleagues but does not quote from it);- that many cenozoic rocks (which the ICR now suggest could/should contain remains of pre-flood humans) were washed out to sea and the ocean bottom by the Genesis flood (no - all or most of the rocks under the oceans have ALWAYS been underwater since they formed ie the oceans once formed never dried up);- the Conclusion that ''With few workers to search, few who know where to search, and the destructive forces of Flood runoff, we should not really expect to have found the remains of pre-Flood people''. Yet - mysteriously - loads and loads of fossils of pre-flood NON human animals allegedly 'survived' the flood (unless of course YEC Ken Ham is talking baloney when indoctrinating kids with ''if there really was a global flood we would expect to see billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth - and we do").

PPS The NH post reminds me that "Furthermore, there are plenty of Cenozoic deposits that are accessible to geologists. There are massive continental shelves that have been uplifted by earthquakes that we can, and have, investigated and if such fossils existed we would likely have found them."

PPPS And as a PS to my 7 August post about the AiG article, the flood judgment was watery (rain for 40 days and what sounds like groundwater rising from below) but not specifically 'marine' (and definitely not targeting marine creatures) - even if the oceans also would have risen and flooded the land.

The anti-science indoctrinator and right wing bigot Ken Ham is at it again:https://www.facebook.com/aigkenham/"No doubt Hurricane Florence will be blamed by many on 'climate change,' 'global warming,' 'global cooling,' or whatever is the current politically correct term! But, there've been many worse hurricanes going back decades. There's been climate change ever since Noah's Flood."

So there you have it. This fanatic's 'biblical worldview' has made him lash out and make malicious accusations against anybody and everybody who is concerned about recent man-made climate change (perhaps he should take a look at what is about to happen in the Philippines). And pretend that the Bible, somehow, has the 'answer' to man-made recent global warming. It does not. The warming is neither natural nor anything to do with the aftermath of a fictional global flood. Florence, in terms of wind strength at least, will be no record breaker. But Ham is still, today, attacking climate change science (and pretending it's all about 'political correctness'). Better to be correct than blatantly wrong Mr Ham. The same Ham who never said a word when the record-breaking Hurricane Irma lashed Florida a year ago.

And another reminder that the bigots at AiG (including at the Ark Encounter) are REFUSING to answer an important question. This question:Does Ken Ham really believe that today's man-caused climate change is contrary to Genesis? Because global warming and more extremes are happening worldwide today - being observed, measured, experienced and explained right now. Look at events in California, Canada, India, Japan and Europe this summer (and Australia this southern winter). If the Bible as well as man-caused climate change is real, why does Ham continue to claim that the recent warming is not caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions? Either he is wrong - or it's the Bible (Genesis) which is not real. Also please explain why a display at the Ark Encounter depicts the Medieval Warm Period as being warmer than now. And when the display asks 'Is Climate Change Natural' why does it fail to show world temperatures later than 2000 (when they have risen rapidly in a historical context)? Man-caused climate change denial is unscientific - and dangerous. And man-caused climate change is in no way 'against' Christianity.

And they're also pushing a new book by one of Ham's associates once again:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lspjN8u7UIA (from 3 minutes in Jeanson discusses a debate he had on the 'Non Sequitur Show' about his book with a Dr Herman Mays - who is copied into this; the next link also applies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvcLvKdPOxk)Note that Jeanson claims God created 'kinds' of animals not species (which twists Genesis as well as reality in my view). And yet again Jeanson claims that the critic, Mays in this case, "didn't read his book" other than cursorily - and was 'misrepresenting' and 'ridiculing' it. He also claims his book contains testable predictions. (The whole Answers News item on 'Replacing Darwin' lasts a full 15 minutes.)

And Ham is irked on his Facebook page about education in the UK as well:"Ultimately, there's only two religions—God's Word vs. man's word. And as education becomes secularized, the absolutes of Christianity will not be tolerated by secularists who want moral relativism. Intolerance and persecution of Christians will increase. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-45451489"

All this looks more like a war on science and knowledge than 'biblical' Christianity.

Now find us a carnivore that as the same species (or 'kind' if you must) used to be a strict exclusive herbivore/vegetarian. I don't think this shark is it - or you would have told us.

"But time and time again, animals thought to be only carnivores are found to be vegetarian or omnivorous." How many of today's species (never mind extinct ones) are strict carnivores? Has he bothered to research this? Does he even care? How many carnivore species have been found to be occasional, opportunistic, vegetarians?